Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.40 seconds)
Union Of India & Anr vs Best Laboratories Pvt Ltd on 19 December, 2025 cites

Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000

We are, therefore, of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR LPA 891/2011 & connected matters Page 16 of 27 BHATIA Signing Date:20.12.2025 17:13:57 view that detailed judgment in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 lays down the correct law and there is no need to refer the cases to larger Bench, as was contended by the counsel for the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 1157 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm And Anr vs K. Santhakumaran And Ors on 9 September, 1998

We are in agreement with the view taken in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran, (1998) 7 SCC 386 that if the High Court allows the review petition filed after the special leave petition was dismissed after condoning the delay, it would be treated as an affront to the order of the Supreme Court. But this is not the case here. In the present case, the review petition was filed well within time and since the review petition was not being decided by the High Court, the appellant filed the special leave petition against the main judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondent and hold that this appeal arising out of the special leave petition is maintainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 108 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988

"42. It has been held in the decision of this Court in MCD v. Gurnam Kaur [(1989) 1 SCC 101 : AIR 1989 SC 38] that when a point does not fall for decision of a court but incidentally arises for its consideration and is not necessary to be decided for the ultimate decision of the case, such a decision does not form a part of the ratio of the case but the same is treated as a decision passed sub silentio.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 817 - A P Sen - Full Document

M/S T.C.Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 11 January, 2023

29. Turning now to the submissions advanced on the doctrine of sub silentio, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India that the issues in question were decided sub silentio on the premise that no determination on merits was rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.C. Healthcare (supra), and that, consequently, the said decision does not constitute "law declared" within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution so as to bind this Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next